F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[waldo]

A pity indeed...it is unfortunate that the American experience with tactical aircraft procurements cannot have more relevance to this topic despite your strident attempts to make it so. F-35's are in production and are being delivered to paying customers.

in your American experience, tell me more - tell me which customers, how many per customer and just what they're doing with them. While you're doing that, tell me which customers have delayed purchase... and advise why they have delayed. You can harp on with your one-trick pony show, but most of the comparative experience in the latter discussions have been focused on the Australian experience... the one where they've given up on the F-35s cost increases/delays/lack of delivery/lack of performance and forged ahead to extend on their existing Super Hornets.

by the way, are you still working on your estimate number for costs to manage concurrency within LRIP? Will you have that number... soon?

[Guest Derek L]

yes, we've already dealt with how that LRIP designation is so casually and cavalierly bandied about... used quite matter-of-factly by F-35 cheer-leaders to imply the program is much, much, much farther along than it really and truly is.

no - the visibility constraints were attributed to four factors, only one of which is said to be quite readily dealt with; specifically: the canopy bow, the high-glare shield, the HMD cable... and the ejection seat headrest. Of those, the cable is described as the only 'easy fix'.

For clarification, care to define an easy and uneasy “fix”?

[Guest Derek L]

absolute nonsense... there is nothing in what you've linked to that would position Bombadier to bring forward a complete new fleet of trainer jets to support the F-35. I quoted you a suggested price @$29 million per T2 Hawk unit... at that price, that's ~ a half billion dollars to bring in the same equivalent number to replace the current CT-155 trainer jets. Why how casually and cavalierly you spend Bombardier's money!

Ahh, but you suggested that since the USAF will be required to replace their aging training fleet, this would “somehow” effect Canada……….When confronted with the reality that Canada out sources pilot training at a fixed rate for our current fleet of Hornets, with no apparent issues, you are now suggesting said relationship won’t continue……….this is based on what?

[Guest Derek L]

cause... there's a contract? Oh wait, which day is this? Is this the day where you line up around HarperConservatives stating there was/is a contract... even though they (finally) admitted there is no such contract setting a fixed price having ever been signed. But really, if waiting (on the ever present, over ongoing, LockMart delays) doesn't raise the price of the F-35... just what is raising the price? Bloody hell, just a few posts back you linked to the DND/Canadian Forces annual F-35 report/status update that (now) suggests the F-35A unit fly-away cost is $87.4 million ($92 million Canadian at the established conversion rates within JSFail). Which, as I have now stated several times, isn't even reality. But I'll humour you: if, as you say, waiting doesn't add to the price, how did we ever get from the initial HarperConservative number of $65 million a plane... which later became $70 million... to this now stated $87/92 million number? What caused that change?

So how does Canada’s purchase date effect F-35 pricing again?

[waldo]

For clarification, care to define an easy and uneasy “fix”?

really? That's your comeback? Gee, what might be the opposite of easy? Perhaps something that affects design... that affects testing... that might have performance implications... that might have dependencies... that might be dependent on something else... that might presume upon new/additional testing requirements... that might have implications on past testing and performance results... that might change procedures... that might affect or impact on standards... etc., etc., etc.

[waldo]

Ahh, but you suggested that since the USAF will be required to replace their aging training fleet, this would “somehow” effect Canada……….When confronted with the reality that Canada out sources pilot training at a fixed rate for our current fleet of Hornets, with no apparent issues, you are now suggesting said relationship won’t continue……….this is based on what?

no - now you're just making up shyte. But does this mean you've now given up spending Bombardier's money for them?

what I said/implied referencing the U.S. concern is that they're caught in a budget constraint in wanting to replace their own trainers... that, in fact, as the linked article I referenced stated, the U.S. is now forced to include bridge training with F-16s... with the money shot quote stating, "The USAF needs to finds a way to train F-35 pilots that does not involve F-16s"! Now... are you stating, with authority, that no pilots from any JSF member country will undergo F-35 training within the U.S.?... at least initially? But really, you're attempting another distraction here - the real point being made was to showcase yet another example of real-world budgetary constraint hitting the U.S. military branches. With only so many dollars available, cuts/delays come forward... that will affect, that are affecting, the FR-35. I mentioned the sequestration imposed change on the USAF - delaying 179 planes post-2017. I alluded to other budget constraints - as I understand the latest budget hit (not sequestration related) has the USN delaying ~60 F-35s.

whatever fixed rate cost for training Canada has with Bombardier, that current cost/arrangement, as you acknowledge, reflects upon the Hornets and the CT-155s. Somehow in your world that imposes a cost implication on Bombardier to support F-35 training using, for example, T2 Hawk jets. Your only real world problem is you can't show/present anything that supports your claim.

[waldo]

So how does Canada’s purchase date effect F-35 pricing again?

what are laughing about? You're the one saying delays have no impact on pricing... you just say 'whatever', without qualifying it! I relate a series of ever increasing price increases and ask you what caused them... if not delays. It's still an open-ended question waiting for your answer. You could provide that answer... or you could continue laughing. Your choice!

[Guest Derek L]

really? That's your comeback? Gee, what might be the opposite of easy? Perhaps something that affects design... that affects testing... that might have performance implications... that might have dependencies... that might be dependent on something else... that might presume upon new/additional testing requirements... that might have implications on past testing and performance results... that might change procedures... that might affect or impact on standards... etc., etc., etc.

So nothing to offer to clarify your “easy fix”, and by extension, an “uneasy fix”?

[Guest Derek L]

no - now you're just making up shyte. But does this mean you've now given up spending Bombardier's money for them?

what I said/implied referencing the U.S. concern is that they're caught in a budget constraint in wanting to replace their own trainers... that, in fact, as the linked article I referenced stated, the U.S. is now forced to include bridge training with F-16s... with the money shot quote stating, "The USAF needs to finds a way to train F-35 pilots that does not involve F-16s"! Now... are you stating, with authority, that no pilots from any JSF member country will undergo F-35 training within the U.S.?... at least initially? But really, you're attempting another distraction here - the real point being made was to showcase yet another example of real-world budgetary constraint hitting the U.S. military branches. With only so many dollars available, cuts/delays come forward... that will affect, that are affecting, the FR-35. I mentioned the sequestration imposed change on the USAF - delaying 179 planes post-2017. I alluded to other budget constraints - as I understand the latest budget hit (not sequestration related) has the USN delaying ~60 F-35s.

whatever fixed rate cost for training Canada has with Bombardier, that current cost/arrangement, as you acknowledge, reflects upon the Hornets and the CT-155s. Somehow in your world that imposes a cost implication on Bombardier to support F-35 training using, for example, T2 Hawk jets. Your only real world problem is you can't show/present anything that supports your claim.

So your American reference in this case was just a……….distraction?

[Guest Derek L]

what are laughing about? You're the one saying delays have no impact on pricing... you just say 'whatever', without qualifying it! I relate a series of ever increasing price increases and ask you what caused them... if not delays. It's still an open-ended question waiting for your answer. You could provide that answer... or you could continue laughing. Your choice!

My quote:

And waiting for the F-35 doesn’t add to it’s price.

was in response to Gosthacked's:

the longer we wait for the F-35, the more expensive it will be.

This is clearly not the case, as the flyaway cost on each LRIP purchase has gone downwards……Care to point out where I referenced delays though? Does the Waldo have to make things up again?

[bush_cheney2004]

... but most of the comparative experience in the latter discussions have been focused on the Australian experience... the one where they've given up on the F-35s cost increases/delays/lack of delivery/lack of performance and forged ahead to extend on their existing Super Hornets.

U.S. contractors have been delivering Super Hornets for over 15 years; JSF deliveries to training squadrons are now underway....paying customers only please. None have gone to Canada, which has neither F-18 E/F/G or F-35 of any variant on order, so any discussion about price (not cost) increases is moot.

by the way, are you still working on your estimate number for costs to manage concurrency within LRIP? Will you have that number... soon?

It's obviously $1 more than Canada can afford to spend. American procurement data makes for a poor vicarious experience.

[waldo]

For clarification, care to define an easy and uneasy “fix”?

really? That's your comeback? Gee, what might be the opposite of easy? Perhaps something that affects design... that affects testing... that might have performance implications... that might have dependencies... that might be dependent on something else... that might presume upon new/additional testing requirements... that might have implications on past testing and performance results... that might change procedures... that might affect or impact on standards... etc., etc., etc.

So nothing to offer to clarify your “easy fix”, and by extension, an “uneasy fix”?

apparently you can't be bothered to read. Please continue with your silly-buggar act - you wear it well! Let's recap: you were adamant that the visibility concern raised by F-35 test pilots was nothing more than what you trivialized as a 'head rest'. I proceeded to correct you and advise that there were actually 4 items identified as raising pilot concerns... apparently, I went over your distraction threshold and advised only one of those 4 was suggested to be an "easy fix". Enter the Derek L distraction dragon avoiding acknowledging you were wrong; of course, at the same time you peel off into another distraction layer.

[waldo]

So your American reference in this case was just a……….distraction?

no - as stated now twice to you, it was a dose of fiscal reality... clearly it's not something F-35 cheer-leaders deal with. Again, the reference reflected upon the ever increasing budgetary constraints hitting the U.S. military, causing prioritization across the board... with degrees of that prioritization directly impacting on the F-35. LockMart no longer has the blank cheque!

[waldo]

This is clearly not the case, as the flyaway cost on each LRIP purchase has gone downwards……Care to point out where I referenced delays though? Does the Waldo have to make things up again?

now you're simply being disingenuous! Anytime (most) anyone talks about the cost of the F-35 it's not with respect to the LRIP iterations... it's quite obviously what is the price at the time of taking possession of a plane... whether that's stupidly taking an LRIP phase plane or actually waiting on a real production model... one that doesn't need to be retrofitted. The question of price going up is in the context of the actual final price versus all the early show-boating, low-balled cost estimates intended for rubes willing to believe anything HarperConservatives trotted out.

I've asked you in the past and I re-asked you just a few posts back in this thread... and now I'll ask you again - offer-up your swag on what you believe the price Canada will pay to acquire the F-35. If you want to play that out over early LRIPs (assuming HarperConservatives are stupid enough to take them) and phased real production, just offer up an average cost. As I did a few posts back, I'll also ask you to attribute the estimated cost increases from the early estimates on through to the latest number you (indirectly) identified by linking to the most recent DND/Canadian Forces F-35 annual/status update report... what do you attribute those estimated cost increases to... if not delays in the JSFail program? Clearly, you have a real aversion to putting yourself out there - to offering up an estimate. Perhaps you still believe some magic fairy dust will validate those early HarperConservative numbers... but you're just not willing to say/write it!

[waldo]

A pity indeed...it is unfortunate that the American experience with tactical aircraft procurements cannot have more relevance to this topic despite your strident attempts to make it so. F-35's are in production and are being delivered to paying customers.

in your American experience, tell me more - tell me which customers, how many per customer and just what they're doing with them. While you're doing that, tell me which customers have delayed purchase... and advise why they have delayed. You can harp on with your one-trick pony show, but most of the comparative experience in the latter discussions have been focused on the Australian experience... the one where they've given up on the F-35s cost increases/delays/lack of delivery/lack of performance and forged ahead to extend on their existing Super Hornets.

U.S. contractors have been delivering Super Hornets for over 15 years; JSF deliveries to training squadrons are now underway....paying customers only please. None have gone to Canada, which has neither F-18 E/F/G or F-35 of any variant on order, so any discussion about price (not cost) increases is moot.

so... you have no numbers then, right? Broadly and generally saying they've gone to, 'training squadrons', as you did, certainly allows you to avoid acknowledging that, for all intents and purposes, the planes aren't actually being flown. That the only planes actually being flown are those flown by test pilots... that the only training going on associates to manuals and simulators. Take solace in all those early LRIP planes being pavement parked!

by the way, are you still working on your estimate number for costs to manage concurrency within LRIP? Will you have that number... soon?

It's obviously $1 more than Canada can afford to spend. American procurement data makes for a poor vicarious experience.

so, you still don't have a number yet, hey? But really, c'mon... if you don't need the lowly member countries for the program, why the "Joint Strike Force" charade? Why didn't you just go it alone? Is/was there a problem?

[bush_cheney2004]

so... you have no numbers then, right? Broadly and generally saying they've gone to, 'training squadrons', as you did, certainly allows you to avoid acknowledging that, for all intents and purposes, the planes aren't actually being flown.

Nonsense...of course the aircraft are being "flown". They found the cracked turbine blade after performance envelope flight testing.

That the only planes actually being flown are those flown by test pilots... that the only training going on associates to manuals and simulators. Take solace in all those early LRIP planes being pavement parked!

OK...but they are aircraft than Canada doesn't have. Paying customers only...please. Tire kickers step aside.

so, you still don't have a number yet, hey? But really, c'mon... if you don't need the lowly member countries for the program, why the "Joint Strike Force" charade? Why didn't you just go it alone? Is/was there a problem?

What numbers ? If you have to repeatedly ask such questions, you can't afford it. Perhaps the U.S. can interest you in an economy model. Or perhaps a lease....

Edited March 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Nonsense...of course the aircraft are being "flown". They found the cracked turbine blade after performance envelope flight testing.

OK...but they are aircraft than Canada doesn't have. Paying customers only...please. Tire kickers step aside.

whaa! Your last sentence grouping acknowledges my statement that the only planes being flown are those by test pilots... of course your last sentence grouping contradicts your first sentence grouping that presumed to challenge my assertion... that the only planes being flown are those by test pilots. Yeesh!

What numbers ? If you have to repeatedly ask such questions, you can't afford it. Perhaps the U.S. can interest you in an economy model. Or perhaps a lease....

.

no - the repeated ask is intended to highlight your flippant attitude towards concurrency costs... costs that the program must bear, costs that LockMart will assign to, ultimately, your described paying customers... including the U.S. military branches; increased costs which reflect on the dollars your country's citizens are paying. So, apparently, you're a hawk... just not a budget hawk! Uhhh, is there such a thing as a budget chicken-hawk?

[Guest Derek L]

apparently you can't be bothered to read. Please continue with your silly-buggar act - you wear it well! Let's recap: you were adamant that the visibility concern raised by F-35 test pilots was nothing more than what you trivialized as a 'head rest'. I proceeded to correct you and advise that there were actually 4 items identified as raising pilot concerns... apparently, I went over your distraction threshold and advised only one of those 4 was suggested to be an "easy fix". Enter the Derek L distraction dragon avoiding acknowledging you were wrong; of course, at the same time you peel off into another distraction layer.

So what is an "easy fix"?

[Guest Derek L]

no - as stated now twice to you, it was a dose of fiscal reality... clearly it's not something F-35 cheer-leaders deal with. Again, the reference reflected upon the ever increasing budgetary constraints hitting the U.S. military, causing prioritization across the board... with degrees of that prioritization directly impacting on the F-35. LockMart no longer has the blank cheque!

So what does that have to do Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

now you're simply being disingenuous! Anytime (most) anyone talks about the cost of the F-35 it's not with respect to the LRIP iterations... it's quite obviously what is the price at the time of taking possession of a plane... whether that's stupidly taking an LRIP phase plane or actually waiting on a real production model... one that doesn't need to be retrofitted. The question of price going up is in the context of the actual final price versus all the early show-boating, low-balled cost estimates intended for rubes willing to believe anything HarperConservatives trotted out.

I've asked you in the past and I re-asked you just a few posts back in this thread... and now I'll ask you again - offer-up your swag on what you believe the price Canada will pay to acquire the F-35. If you want to play that out over early LRIPs (assuming HarperConservatives are stupid enough to take them) and phased real production, just offer up an average cost. As I did a few posts back, I'll also ask you to attribute the estimated cost increases from the early estimates on through to the latest number you (indirectly) identified by linking to the most recent DND/Canadian Forces F-35 annual/status update report... what do you attribute those estimated cost increases to... if not delays in the JSFail program? Clearly, you have a real aversion to putting yourself out there - to offering up an estimate. Perhaps you still believe some magic fairy dust will validate those early HarperConservative numbers... but you're just not willing to say/write it!

With through life support and operation costs factored in, oh about 690-700 million per plane………..Perhaps you’ve missed my prior guesstimates……….

And your estimate(s) for operating the Super Hornet and/or some yet to be developed “drone”?

[Guest Derek L]

Nonsense...of course the aircraft are being "flown". They found the cracked turbine blade after performance envelope flight testing.

A cracked blade attributed to FOD.

[Guest Derek L]

whaa! Your last sentence grouping acknowledges my statement that the only planes being flown are those by test pilots... of course your last sentence grouping contradicts your first sentence grouping that presumed to challenge my assertion... that the only planes being flown are those by test pilots. Yeesh!

And said statement would be incorrect, based on the BIO’s of both the Commanding and Executive officers of the first Marine F-35B squadron.

http://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/Leaders/tabid/8101/Article/128965/major-summa.aspx

As you will see, both Officers are experienced instructors & functional check flight pilots, indicative of an operational squadron that is in the process of familiarizing it’s commissioned and non commissioned members with a new aircraft.

[bush_cheney2004]

whaa! Your last sentence grouping acknowledges my statement that the only planes being flown are those by test pilots... of course your last sentence grouping contradicts your first sentence grouping that presumed to challenge my assertion... that the only planes being flown are those by test pilots. Yeesh!

Nonsense....they are being flown by test and training squadrons. Nothing I posted contradicts this.

.

no - the repeated ask is intended to highlight your flippant attitude towards concurrency costs... costs that the program must bear, costs that LockMart will assign to, ultimately, your described paying customers... including the U.S. military branches; increased costs which reflect on the dollars your country's citizens are paying. So, apparently, you're a hawk... just not a budget hawk! Uhhh, is there such a thing as a budget chicken-hawk?

The price (not cost) is what it is. Price includes profits and incentives for the initial cost-plus contracts, on which LM will take a hit. But none of this has anything to do with Canada, which has no contract for F-35s. Do you also worry about the cost price of mangos sold in Peru ?

As to your other comments, the world knows who is cheap.

[waldo]

So what is an "easy fix"?

your question has been asked and answered and answered again... an easy fix is something opposite to a non-easy fix! I gave you a ream of suggestions as to something that's the opposite of easy... you know, "arduous, complex, complicated, demanding, difficult, hard, intricate, involved, laborious"!!!

I can play your game, as well. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked for a distinction between easy... and uneasy. "Uneasy"!!! Really? Try a dictionary!

[waldo]

So what does that have to do Canada?

are you trying to bump your posting numbers? In your roundabout way, are you suggesting that U.S. budgetary constraints affecting the U.S. military, in turn affecting U.S. military F-35 prioritization, has no affect on the overall F-35 program?